Video: Bimal Arora on CSR & Inclusive Business in India

Bimal Arora is a CSR scholar and consultant in India. In this interview with Dr Wayne Visser, Director of CSR International, he shares insights from his research and years of experience in the field.

Video: Matthias Gerber on Peat Forests and Green Building Trends

Matthias Gerber is an environmentalist living in Malaysia. He was once voted as the Greenest Man on the Planet by a Canadian environmental organisation. In this interview with Dr Wayne Visser, Director of CSR International, he talks about the crisis of peat forest destruction and green building trends in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Slides: CSR 2.0 - The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility

Describes the failure of corporate social responsibility (CSR 1.0) due to the Triple Curse, and introduces Wayne Visser's model of CSR 2.0, including its 5 Principles and 4 DNA Codes.

CSR 2.0: The Future of Corporate Social Responsibility

View more presentations from waynevisser.

CSR for SMEs: Lessons from Mexico

In a country where more than 95% of businesses are micro-enterprises, how do you make CSR relevant? Well, you start by replacing the corporate C with an enterprising E. In Mexico, as in all of Latin America, CSR translates as RSE - Responsabilidad Social Empresarial, or Social Responsibility for Enterprises.

You also figure out how to turn social, environmental and ethical responsibilities into a business model, rather than a peripheral add-on. This is what the IDEARSE Centre for Enterprise Sustainability & Responsibility at Anauhuac University has done, as part of the government's SME Accelerator programme (Aceleradora de Negocios IDEA-Anáhuac).

I had the chance to learn more about this pioneering programme at the 7th International CSR Conference in Mexico City on 9 October 2009, hosted by COMPITE in partnership with IDEARSE, among others, where I was delivering the keynote address on "The Future of CSR".

The IDEARSE Acceleration Business Model - which strives to support businesses growth through a CSR business administration model that develops competitive advantage - is based on 6 principles: Self regulation (governance), human rights, stakeholder engagement, labour responsibility, environment (eco-efficiency) and social & community impact.

Working with this framework, IDEARSE takes SMEs through an 18 month process of establishing baseline performance, completing a CSR diagnostic, doing a gap analysis, coming up with an action plan, executing it, establishing a new baseline, evaluating impacts and writing up the case study. To date, 76 SMEs have been taken through the process.

What is the result? SMEs that scored an average of 23% on IDEARSE's comprehensive CSR diagnostic before the intervention almost doubled their CSR performance to 43%. Some of the biggest improvements were on self regulation/governance (17% to 48%), process improvement (26% to 47%) and stakeholder engagement (32% to 52%).

Importantly, improvements also show up on the bottom line. The SMEs in the Acceleration programme showed a 30% annual sales growth, and 19% growth in employment, creating 675 new jobs (pre-financial crisis). This is an iterative model, so once the first round of actions have been implemented, the cycle is repeated, leading to continuous improvement.

In developed countries, we have become arrogant about being leaders in CSR. But I believe that many of the most interesting and important innovations - like the IDEARSE Business Acceleration Model - are happening in developing countries. To give another example, Mexico is one of the only countries I know that has a national certifiable CSR standard.

It is time to recognise that CSR is no longer a standardised, Western concept. It has globalised, and as it has done so, it has diversified to meet the needs of the countries, cultures and communities where it finds itself. This is good news. We must hang onto universal CSR principles, but learn to let go of any pre-conceived ideas of what CSR must look like in practice. For to really change the world, CSR first has to become a grassroots movement.

--

For more information about the IDEARSE Business Acceleration Model, contact Jorge Reyes-Iturbide on jreyes@anahuac.mx.

The Three Curses of CSR: Curse 3 - Uneconomic Role

Curse 3: Uneconomic CSR

If there was ever a monotonously repetitive, stuck record in CSR debates, it is the one about the so-called ‘business case’ for CSR.

That is because CSR managers and consultants, and even the occasional saintly CEO, are desperate to find compelling evidence that ‘doing good is good for business’, i.e. CSR pays! And indeed, the lack of sympathetic research seems to be no impediment for these desperados endlessly incanting the motto of the business case, as if it were an entirely self-evident fact.

The rather more ‘inconvenient truth’ is that CSR sometimes pays, in specific circumstances, but more often does not. Of course there are low-hanging fruit – like eco-efficiencies around waste and energy – but these only go so far.

Most of the hard-core CSR changes that are needed to reverse the misery of poverty and the sixth mass extinction of species currently underway require strategic change and massive investment. They may very well be lucrative in the long term, economically rational over a generation or two, but we have already established that the financial markets don’t work like that; at least, not yet.

The Three Curses of CSR: Curse 2 - Peripheral Status

Curse 2: Peripheral CSR

Ask any CSR manager what their greatest frustration is and they will tell you: lack of top management commitment. This is ‘code-speak’ for saying that CSR is, at best, a peripheral function in most companies.

There may be a CSR manager, a CSR department even, a CSR report and a public commitment to any number of CSR codes and standards. But these do little to mask the underlying truth that shareholder-driven capitalism is rampant and its obsession with short-term financial measures of progress is contradictory in almost every way to the long-term, stakeholder approach needed for high-impact CSR.

The reason Enron collapsed, and indeed why our current financial crisis was allowed to spiral out of control, was not because of a few rogue executives or creative accounting practices, it was because of a culture of greed embedded in the DNA of the company and the financial markets.

Joel Baken (author of The Corporation) goes so far as to suggest that companies are legally bound to act like psychopaths. Whether you agree or not (and despite the emerging research on ‘responsible competitiveness’), it is hard to find any substantive examples in which the financial markets reward responsible behaviour.

The Three Curses of CSR: Curse 1 - Incrementalism

Why has CSR failed so spectacularly to address the very issues it claims to be most concerned about? This comes down to three factors – the Three Curses of CSR, if you like:

Curse 1: Incremental CSR

One of the great revolutions of the 1970s was total quality management, conceived by American statistician W. Edwards Deming, perfected by the Japanese and exported around the world as ISO 9001. At the very core of Deming’s TQM model and the ISO standard is continual improvement, a principle that has now become ubiquitous in all management system approaches to performance. No surprise, therefore, that the most popular environmental management standard, ISO 14001, is also built on the same principle.

There is nothing wrong with continuous improvement per se. On the contrary, it has brought safety and reliability to the very products and services that we associate with modern quality of life. But when we use it as the primary approach to tackling our social, environmental and ethical challenges, it fails on two critical counts: speed and scale. The incremental approach of CSR, while replete with evidence of micro-scale, gradual improvements, has completely and utterly failed to make any impact on the massive sustainability crises that we face, many of which are getting worse at a pace that far outstrips any futile CSR-led attempts at amelioration.

Curse 2 to follow ...

Pandora's CSR Box: The Case for Banning CSR

I participated in a strategy session on CSR/sustainability this week and was left wondering if we CSR specialists are our own worst enemy. Would more progress be made if we banned CSR? Would we be better off if we never used the C-word again? What if we substituted “CSR” with “risk management” or “new business development”?

Let me explain what I mean. By having a CSR function, or department, or profession or career, we have created a neat little box for mainstream business to put CSR-related activities into - the CSR report, the ethics code, the supply chain audit. That has some advantages - there is a focal point, people to get things done - but at what cost?

The problem with boxes is that people often don’t think (or act) outside them. If environmental quality, or human rights, or health and safety, or stakeholder engagement is something that gets assigned to the CSR-box, there is a very real danger that everyone else feels they have been absolved of responsibility.

Not only that, the CSR-box mentality suggests that social, environmental and ethical challenges can be solved by thinkering at the edges of business, rather than reforming the core. If the current financial crisis teaches us anything, it is that we have to fundamentally change the way we do business. The current model is broken.

But what are the chances that business will change voluntarily? The answer is: extremely good! In fact, it is inevitable. That is because the issues we are dealing with - the breakdown of ecosystem services, the erosion of morality and the disintegration of social justice - are not marginal issues. They are business deal-breakers.

Put another way, the issues CSR is trying to tackle are business risks. If fish stocks collapse, or communities stay poor, or we have catastrophic climate change, or corruption is endemic - these undermine the ability for business to prosper. They undermine the enabling conditions for business - resource availability, political stability, and clear rules and ethics.

So when I say there is a case for banning CSR, I don’t mean stopping CSR-related efforts, or firing CSR professionals. I mean changing the language of CSR and raising the CSR game - to the level of strategic risk and opportunity. This is not about greenwash and moral high ground. This is about competitive survival and future markets.

Business will not (and should not) do CSR only because it is the right thing to do. Business should do CSR because it will go out of business if it doesn’t and it will be more successful if it does. And if it just calls that approach “good business sense” or “risk management” or “strategic investment”, rather than “CSR”, so much the better.

An Agenda for the Future of CSR

I recently received my copy of “The Corporate Responsibility Movement” by Jem Bendell, et al., which includes some pieces I wrote together with him. I was struck by how relevant the chapter on “An Agenda for the Future of CSR”, which we wrote in 2005, still seems to be. So I have decided to repost it here:

We believe that the movement is at a crucial juncture. Companies have climbed the corporate social responsibility (CSR) learning curve and are now playing the game like experts. They have reframed the debate into language which they can understand and use without upsetting most of their shareholders, and they have designed policies and programs which they can implement without having to question their underlying business model.

There seems to be a pervading sense in many CSR circles that there is now business consensus about the most pressing issues in our global society, taking their cues from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Global Compact and other such frameworks. While many of the issues remain difficult to deal with in practice, companies are credited with putting strategies in place for tackling them. Everything, they argue, is going according to plan; hence, there is no need for anything more dramatic, especially not legislation to enforce improved performance. Or is there?

There is another perspective, which enjoys far less air time. A perspective that says the world is in a deepening crisis of alarming proportions and that the private sector’s response, under the guise of CSR, is as effective as placing a band aid on the foot of someone who is haemorrhaging from a head wound. This alternative perspective, radical as it sounds, nevertheless seems to be confirmed by just about every available statistic on the ecological and social health of our global society.

The question then becomes: is CSR, as it is currently being preached and practiced by multinational corporations around the world, actually a red herring? Is it a distraction from the more fundamental transformation (perhaps revolution even) of the capitalist business model which is needed? And as CSR becomes an established professional practice, will it take as given that its purpose is to benefit those who employ its professionals, rather than a primary goal of transforming the world?

If so, CSR will have contributed towards a global ‘Crash and Burn’ scenario, with growing ecological and social degradation.

Such criticism forces those of us who work on corporate responsibility issues, perhaps even identify ourselves as part of a CSR movement or a CSR profession, to reflect on our roles. Do we have a clear strategy for how we can help solve the big problems of poverty, pollution, abuse and so forth, by working with/in corporates? And if we think we are helping in small ways, do we have a plan for how to scale up our impacts to address problems which require widespread action, like climate change? Without one, might we just be pretending we are helping the planet and its people, while climbing another greasy pole? The risk here is that we all seem remarkably adept at coming up with explanations of our own behaviour and priorities that maintain an appearance of “ethicalness”… at least to ourselves. We have to find the courage to be self-critical, and explore what we are thinking and doing.

It is through this reflexivity that CSR might avoid being complicit in a global ‘Crash and Burn’ and become a crucial part of a ‘Rise and Shine’ scenario, where the world achieves a greater harmony between its peoples and with ecology. This scenario requires systemic change. For CSR to help with this systemic change, we need to embrace both idealism and realism.

Idealism is important as we must reawaken the values which underscore the CSR agenda, rather than hiding them sheepishly behind commercial arguments for action. A revival of zealous passion and moral belief as a driver of corporate change and a new intensity of questioning of the reigning business model is key.

Idealism and realism are often counterpoised, yet we need both if we are to promote systemic change. Idealism should not blind us from awareness of the limits of individual voluntary action. Some realism about markets and the law is essential. The commercial benefits from improved social and environmental performance are patchy, and many companies still make profits through externalising social and environmental costs - a process which is promoted by mainstream financial markets that still focus on short term value creation. Given this situation, the current system of governance, regulation and law enforcement is not often sufficient, as international companies can evade accountability through the use of sub-contracting and subsidiaries, while also being able to influence the processes of public governance itself, with questionable outcomes.

Extracted from “The Corporate Responsibility Movement” (2009) by Bendell, Visser, et al.

Googlization: For Better or Worse?

I have been intrigued by the twittering and gnashing of teeth over the past week or so over Google's launch of its Street View maps for 25 cities in the UK. This case illustrates the CSR-related dilemmas faced by many companies today. In this blog, I look at the basic facts, the pros and cons and the implied questions for CSR.

What is Street View?

Street View is a 360 degree photographic panoramic view of the streets, which can be accessed through Google Maps in the cities in which it is available. The photos are about a year old and faces and number plates are blurred out. Google believes this is simply an evolution of mapping, giving people more useful and accurate information about their travel routes and destinations. Although new to the UK, it has, I believe, been available in the US for some years already.

What are the Objections?

A number of thematic concerns have emerged in the post-launch hulabaloo:

1. Privacy - The most common objection is that this represents an invasion of privacy and a commericalisation of public space. Somehow, people feel vulunerable, even violated, by having photos of their homes, cars and in some cases themselves or their children, made public.
2. Security - There are concerns that Street View creates a tool for criminals (burglars and perhaps peidophiles) to search for, target and study their victims homes - do they have a burglar alarms, where are the windows and doors, are there children playing in the garden?
3. Consultation - Individual members of the public were not consulted, or asked for permission, before Google took photos of their home. They did this using a modified car, with a special mounted camera that drove down each street taking 360 degree photos.
4. Googlization - There is a deep mistrust among some portions of the public who believe Google is somehow taking over the world, invading our lives, like some sinister, evil meglomaniac - the latest in a long line of corporate colonisers and cultural imperialists, like Coca-Cola and McDonald's.

What is Google's Response?

Google is anything but apologetic. It doesn't believe it is doing anything wrong. Here are their reasons why:

1. Privacy - Since the photos are not live, they are taken in a public space, faces and number plates are blurred out and house owners have the right to request that their house image is removed from Street View, Google believes it is not infringing on people's privacy.
2. Security - Besides the pictures being more than a year old, any criminal could walk down a street and view the same house details without breaking any laws. Criminals use mobile phones and cars to help them commit their crimes, so should we ban mobiles and cars? Why should maps be different?
3. Consultation - There is nothing in law that requires anyone to get permission to take photos in a public space. Also, Google consulted with all the relevant UK authorities (including security and police departments) and got given the green light.
4. Googlization - Google believes it is popular because it offers useful products and services for millions of people. Google's motto is to "do no evil" and its vision is to make all knowledge freely available to everyone on the planet. It also has ambitious plans to make renewables cheaper than fossil fuels. Is this the picture of a monster?

What are the CSR Implications?

This all raises fascinating questions for CSR, for example:

• Legal Compliance - Google is not doing anything illegal, but CSR is about going beyond the law. What does "beyond compliance" mean in this instance? Does giving house-owners the choice to remove their images go far enough?
• Transparency - The launch of Street View came as a surprise (a shock even!) to most people in Britain. Where was the public information, let alone consultation, in the lead-up to the launch? Would there have been less reaction if the public was made more aware?
• Governance - Do companies need to consult stakeholders individually on every issue (surely this is impossible)? If the government is meant to represent the public, is it enough for companies to consult government agencies? Would it have worked better if other stakeholder groups were consulted?
•  Power - At what point does corporate power and influence become dangerous? Google is providing vast free-to-the-public knowledge resources, but at the same time we are placing increasing reliance on one corporation to look after our personal details and private documentation. Isn't this risky?
• Demand - Isn't it hypocritical to demand that Google change, when consumers are clearly demanding and enjoying their services? Surely a public harm would need to be clearly demonstrated (the equivalent of poor labour conditions for low-cost retailers, or health risks for fast-food chains)? Even then, government intervention is difficult in the face of widespread public support.

Google seems content to ride out the public mini-storm, confident that Street View will survive and thrive on its own merits, as it has done in America and elsewhere. But there seem to be some clear CSR lessons they could learn about consultation, transparency and increasingly worrying perceptions of their "Big Brother" mantle.

I have now joined the future

This is a green post. It is recycled from my reporting blog. It's a sort of lighter version of Wayne's excellent analysis of the REAL future of Codes and Standards, though it was actually written before i know that the future would feature in both posts ...here it is:

Guess what ! I have now officially become a member of the future.

I participated yesterday in what was for me a very futuristic experience - yes - you guessed .. a WEBINAR!! I like to think i am a computer-literate techie sort of person, but to date, I have resisted all these millions of webinars and things, mainly because of the hassle factor (getting hooked up), the earphones factor (flat ears) , the poor connection factor (crackles, buzzes and beeps) and the half-sentence factor ( hello, welcome to.................. today............will discuss .................important to note that ....................very significant as you can see on slide 3 that....................) . But the temptation of hearing code-guru Deborah Leipziger was too great to resist. So, albeit a little late (10 yr old daughter needed mom to buy her hundreds of $$$$$ of clothes for her birthday party at the weekend), I accepted the CSR International invitation to join the first in the impressive line-up of webinar events scheduled until the end of 2009 (this is great forward planning - unlike my local culture where planning more than 3 hours ahead causes chronic migraine)

Deborah Leipziger is the first lady of corporate, industry and cause-related codes of conduct and ethical standards. Her Code Book created order and understanding of the relevance and importance of framing conduct expectations and existing best practices. A sort of Code Bible. Amen.

How is this connected to Reporting ? No CSR report today is complete without reference to a Code of Conduct and in many cases, declaration of a string of external codes that the corporation adopts. My guess is that on average, companies have about 5 or more different codes they try to observe in their businesses.

A quick look at some CSR reports proves me mainly right:

• ExxonMobil 2007: corporate code(s) of conduct , global responsible care charter, global compact, voluntary Principles on Security and human Rights, millenium development goals, ILO convention on Indigenous peoples
• Westpac Banking Corp 2008 : UNPRI, principles for doing business, Equator Principles, ASX principles on Good Corporate Governance, sustainable supply chain managment code of conduct, GRI, UNEP Finance Initiative, CEO Water Mandate
• Sony 2008: Sony Group code of conduct, EICC code of conduct (only 2 ? did i miss a few?)
• Diageo 2008: Global compact, Dublin Principles, Business charter for sustainable development, CEO Water Mandate, internal codes of ethics, GRI

The harmonization of codes was one point raised in the discussion - though a key part of the value of the Code is the process by which it was created. So maybe we need lots of processes but less codes ?

Anyway, back to the view from the top - few insights from the guru:

• ISO 26000 is not cutting-edge but it is broad and covers most of the range of CSR issues . It is right to go the guideline route and not the certification route, though certification at a national level in local language could be an opportunity. Some national certification bodies are already starting to consider its use - Portugal and Denmark for instance.
• Sectorialization is becoming more popular and useful as a tool for different industries such as the electronics industry, automotives, forestry, financial sector tools such as the Equator Principles.
• Training is essential to ensure application and assimilation of codes - this is often underestimated
• Impact analysis including gathering of base line data is often overlooked but is an important tool in understanding both the effectiveness of the code and the unintended consequences of implementation.

In response to my question, What about a code of conduct for CSR professionals or are we exempt? there was a knowing smile and an admission that the cobbler forgot to make himself a pair of shoes, or whatever the saying is. There was the question of how do you define a CSR professional . Right now, as long as its polite, I dont mind. :-)
Anyway, i have to end this blog post now as i have to go off and write another code....
Thanks to Deborah and to Wayne Visser, CSRI founder and webinar maestro

elaine cohen is the joint CEO of BeyondBusiness, a leading reporting and social-environmental consulting firm based in Israel. Visit our website at: www.b-yond.biz !

CSR is dead ... Long live CSR

For those who didn't already see this on the new CSR International website, here is the press release about last week's launch event. Note: You can now also follow the blog on www.csrinternational.org:

On Wednesday (4 March), a funeral service was held in London to commemorate the life of ‘Old CSR’ (known to many as Corporate Social Responsibility or CSR 1.0), who passed away peacefully in his sleep, another unfortunate victim of the global financial crisis.

After the coffin was respectfully laid down at The Hub Kings Cross, Dr Wayne Visser, Founder and CEO of CSR International, paid tribute to “a life well lived” and “a pioneer in his time”:

“Old CSR was a good person at heart, always willing to give to those in need. Some will remember him for his outlandish dress style – how he always loved to dress in green and show off – but that was part of his charm. We will miss him dearly, not least because he touched the lives of so many around the world. He leaves behind baby daughter.”

Visser’s eulogy was followed by touching tributes from friends and colleagues, who each lit a candle in his memory. In the respectful hush that followed, an unexpected baby’s cry was heard, which seemed to be coming from the coffin. Tentatively, the cloth draped over the coffin was removed, only to reveal a tiny crib with a new-born baby.

As the lights went up, flowers were handed out by Ms Clemence Viel and minstrel Mr Lenny Charles launched into a festive tune on the berimbau, Visser conducte a spontaneous naming and blessing ceremony:

“Some of you may be wondering who this innocent child is. Well, I just happen to know that it is none other than Old CSR’s daughter, who with his dying breaths, he named CSR 2.0. She brings hope to our troubled world, for as the ‘new CSR’ of ‘Corporate Sustainability & Responsibility’, her life will be inspired by new world the principles of Connectivity, Scaleability and Responsiveness.”

After bestowing his blessing, a few friends came forward, each holding a bright flower, and spoke of their hopes and wishes for CSR 2.0.

Tributes also poured in from those around the world who could not be there in person, but who attended the live web broadcast of event or sent their good wishes ahead. Among these was John Elkington, Founder Director of SustainAbility and Volans and a good friend of Old CSR over the years:

“The theme of Death and Rebirth is timely. We have just completed some work that begins to map out what we call the ‘Phoenix Economy’, a new order that is struggling to rise from the rubble and ashes of the old. CSR 2.0 will be a necessary condition for success.  We wish CSR International every success.”

As guests left the CSR International launch event, many were smiling – some bemused, some amused, but most hopeful, having just witnessed the birth of a new era of Corporate Sustainability & Responsibility. CSR is dead … long live CSR!

CSR or another label: Who cares?

Some people get very excited about what label you use to describe the role of business in society. Should it be corporate socialresponsibility, or just corporate responsibility, or maybe business (social) responsibility? What about corporate citizenship or corporate accountability? Maybe sustainable development or corporate sustainability or just sustainability? Social enterprise or sustainable business? On and on the debate rages … or rather, whimpers.

As someone who is about to launch a new variation - corporate sustainability & responsibility or CSR 2.0 - of an old label - corporate social responsibility or just plain CSR - I feel I should make my position clear on the battle of the labels. To borrow from Gone With the Wind, “Quite frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!” Which is not to say that labels don’t tell us something. They can be quite instructive.

For example, corporate social responsibility indicates the strong philanthropic roots of CSR, going back to the late 1800s, with benefactors like Rockerfeller and Cadbury giving business responsibility a distinctly social flavour. On the other hand, corporate sustainability, which grew out of the Rio Earth Summit, still struggles to shake off its environmental tinge, despite John Elkington’s best efforts at rebranding it as a “triple bottom line”.

Likewise, my concept of CSR 2.0 is trying to say something - notably that the old CSR as philanthropy, public relations, voluntary action and incremental improvement is no longer adequate (if ever it was) to the challenges the world faces, be they persistant poverty, climate change or rampant corruption. The old version - 1.0 - is obselete, and the new version - 2.0 - is still in the “beta testing phase”, to use Web 2.0 jargon.

Another thing I’m trying to signal by rebranding CSR as Corporate Sustainability & Responsibility is that we should concede that there are only really two label-games in town - corporate responsibility and corporate sustainability. You only need to look at companies’ non-financial reports to see this. So rather than keep up the ding-dong battle for who’s best, why not simply combine the two, and keep the acronym CSR, which slips easily off the tongue.

That’s the kind of transformative and integrated CSR we’re aiming for at CSR International. But far more important than the label are the principles behind the name. Is business’s response simply more tinkering at the edges, or does it create scalable solutions to our global challenges? Is business really listening to its stakeholders, or do they get short shrift when the economic going gets tough?

So pick whatever label you most fancy, or none at all if you like. But promise me that whatever your choice, you will not let companies hide behind the label and pretend that a few well-meaning donations, or marginal improvements in energy efficiency, or meeting minimum labour conditions makes them a serious part of the solution. As Muhammad Yunus said to me in an interview last year, that doesn’t give them “the right to be remembered”.

He went on to say that it is only when we change the world - when we change people’s lives for the better - that we have a right to put our signature on this planet. These are the sort of values, principles and results by which any CSR or alternative label should be judged. I only hope that in 10 years time, CSR 2.0 will have lived up to this challenge and give us all the right to speak with confidence about the contribution of CSR, rather than have to apologise for its continued failure.

The role of charity in CSR

Following my last post on philanthrocapitalism, you may think that I am somehow anti-charity. Nothing can be further from the truth. Charity has an important role to play in society. There will always be those who are vulnerable or who are victims of injustice, who need and deserve the help of those of us who have been more fortunate.

I found out the other day (reading the Oxford  Book of 20th Century Words) that "Barnado" entered the English language as an adjective in 1904 (thanks to Rudyard Kipling - "all the time the beggar was a balmy Barnardo Orphan!"). What an amazing legacy of Dr Thomas John Barnado, who first founded Barnado homes in 1867.

In fact, supporting an orphanage was one of the first recorded instances of CSR-related charity, by Macy's in 1875 (as Archie Carroll tells in his excellent chapter on "A History of CSR" in The Oxford Handbook of CSR). I share Carroll's perspective on philanthropy, namely that it is just one part of CSR (along with economic, legal and ethical responsibilities in Carroll's CSR pyramid).

As I also show, however, philanthropy plays a different role in different countries and regions. In many developing countries (as I argue in a chaper in the same book), philanthropy tends to be the second-most important aspect of CSR (after economic contribution). But this is not ideal - it brings serious dilemmas and dangers.

One dilemma is that it casts companies in the role of governments - providing public services like education, healthcare and infrastructure. The problem is that business acts more like a monarchy than a democracy. Nobody voted them in and there are serious conflicts of interest when the beneficiaries are often dependent on the company for jobs.

Which is really the second major dilemma and danger - dependency. I saw this especially in Mozambique when I did some CSR work there a few years ago. The entire economy is geared towards foreign aid and donations. This leads to perverse policies (and sometimes questionable behaviours from charities themselves) that do not encourage independence or innovation.

Since charity will always be an important part of CSR, the real challenge is how to make sure that it "does what it says on the tin". Can we trust the organisations that act on our behalf? Today, I dropped off some spare clothes and books with Oxfam, which I think does a great job. But the issue of charity governance and accountability will certainly not go away.

The final point I would make is that charity is as much about the giver as the receiver. Giving makes us feel good. My research on what provides CSR managers with meaning in their work and life suggests that "making a difference" (which is the title of my CSR book on the subject) represents a deep pyschological motivation in humans that companies be aware of and tap into.

Philanthrocapitalism: A disaster idea that threatens CSR

Philanthrocapitalism is quite frankly the worst CSR-related idea I've come across in a long, long time. For those who aren't yet familiar with the term, it is the title of a book by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green, with high-powered endorsers like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates (hardly surprising given that both have reinvented themselves as uber-philanthropists).

Now first, let me confess that I have not read the book, nor do I ever intend to, unless someone holds an (ethically sourced, fairtrade) gun to my head. So I am reacting against the concept, rather than the content. Apart from the awful neologism, for me, the sub-title of the book - "how the rich can save the world" - says enough.

The idea that philanthropists can save the world is exactly the sort of backward thinking legacy that the CSR movement has been fighting to escape from over the past 20 years and more. Don't get me wrong, philanthropists do have a positive impact in the world (witness the progress made on diseases like Polio and river blindness) and we should be grateful for their generosity. 

But the idea that social justice, environmental sustainability, human rights and ethical transparency should be left to the whims of a few super-rich individuals is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous. They are not elected; hence there is no public mandate, nor any accountability mechanisms to control their actions. We should be looking to strengthen governance, not abdicating responsibility to profiteers.

Of more fundamental concern is that the very brand of capitalism that has made philanthropists wealthy is the root cause of many of the environmental, social and ethical impacts that CSR is trying to remedy. It is the same capitalism that breeds the income inequalities that allow philanthropists to have such preposterous wealth in the first place. It is the capitalism that has fuelled the culture of greed and excess that tipped us into a global recession. 

But that's a topic for another day. What about CSR? CSR should be about how you make your money, not whether you give it away once it's made. Companies and their leaders should be judged on who they trample on and what they destroy in the process of making money, not who they help once they've succeeded at all costs. Writing cheques is easy. Running a sustainable and responsible business is hard. 

Already the view that CSR equals philanthropy is in danger of taking hold in places like China. The last thing we need is to encourage this Stone-Age thinking. By all means, let us cheer on the philanthropists. But let us not for one moment think that this is CSR, nor that it makes these generous souls good role models for responsible business. If we want CSR to survive and thrive into the future, the idea of philanthrocapitalism must die a quick and painless death. If it doesn't, CSR will be dead and buried within the decade.

POLL: CSR Leaders - Who is your top 10?

CSR International - with your help - is compiling a Top 100 list of CSR Leaders (including thought-leaders and leaders-in-practice). 

Taking into account your prior input and our own research, we have compiled a master list of potential CSR 100 Leaders. 

Now we need you to help us sort out who really deserves to be there. Simply click on the survey link below and select your Top 10 CSR Leaders (it should take 5 minutes or less!) and we will do the rest. 

The results will be displayed on the CSR International website in March, and will help to shape our upcoming CSR Leaders Webinar series. I look forward to discovering who the popular choices of the CSR community are!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=FYrw73VzlRHkKwYd_2b73nVg_3d_3d

CSR reflections on Davos (Day 3)

When the biggest news item is the (lack of) mobile phone ettiquette displayed by British Prime Mininster Gordon Brown, I begin to question the value of blogging about Davos Day 3. But then, at least his opposition party leader, David Cameron, revived yesterday's "quest for a new capitalism" theme, calling for "capitalism with a conscience".

Cameron urged businesses not to ignore the interests of society in the pursuit of profits, saying it's time for wealth to be distributed "more equally". Now, I don't blame you if you're pinching yourself. No, you're not dreaming, and yes, this is from the same conservative party that brought us free-market spin-doctor, Margaret Thatcher.

Cameron's call on Day 3 was the exception however (that was Day 2's theme - try to keep up David!). Most of the talk and twitter on Day 3 was about protectionism - dire warnings that this is precisely what led to the Great Depression in the 1930s and tut-tutting by German Chancellor Merkel about America's auto-industry bale-out, which is Protectionism with a big P - protectionism of the $25 billion variety.

They may be right, but this is a bit of a tough sell on a world still fighting the runaway fires of neoliberal capitalism. What's more, it is precisely managed protectionism that has helped sustain China's rise to prosperity, while neither America or Europe has been prepared to forfeit their perverse agricultural or fossil fuel subsidies.

But before I head off on a tangent ... the day was not totally devoid of CSR-related themes. Al Gore was seen looking much cheerier than usual, assuring us that Obama's commitment to a post-Kyoto deal on climate change is real. Let's hope Obama gets further with his good intentions than Gore did during his term as Vice President.

(I remember Gore at a two day training event organised by the University of Cambridge Programme for Industry in 2007, when asked what he would do differently if he was in the White House today, he said, I would be President, not Vice President! Well, he's got the next best thing - the ear of Obama).

Denmark's Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, politely asked rich and poor countries alike to commit to big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, ahead of year-end talks on a new climate treaty that he will host in Copenhagen. Ironically, the worldwide economic collapse may be good news for the climate, at least in the short term. Remember how Russia's emissions went into freefall along with their economy in the early 1990s?

The messages out of Africa were sadly familiar, but no less true: Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga criticised Zimabwe's Robert Mugabe for allowing 3,000 people to die of cholera and African leaders for not taking a unified stand against him. He admitted that corruption on the continent must be reigned in, but so too must Western companies exploiting Africa's resources.

Amazingly, there were still a few brave, intrepid banking honchos pleading the financial industry's case. HSBC chairman Stephen Green said that banks must not be "demonized" over the financial crisis. "Banks have clearly done things wrong. Some of the practices did not contribute, by any reasonable standards, to human welfare." 

Thanks for the apology, Steve, but you won't get off the naughty-step that easily! Besides, if I'm not wrong, most of your mates are now working for the politicians. So we'll let you know how we feel about the banks - demonic or otherwise - when next we place our democratic votes. 

Which makes me wonder ... could we be witnessing a shift from CSR to CNR - from corporate social responsibility to corporate national responsibility?

CSR Reflections on Davos (Day 1)

It's fair to say that if you're prone to depression, Davos is not a good place to be this year. Not only is the economic outlook gloomier than ever, but it is also snowing heavily "thus forcing everybody to dress in silly boots and bear-like coats that automatically strip even 'masters of the universe' of a bit of their dignity", as BBC Radio 4 Today programme presenter Evan Davis noted.

So what have we learned so far? Here are 5 points that I took away from today:

1. GROWTH - The IMF is expecting the global growth rate for 2009 to fall to 0.5%, meaning growth per capita will be negative. The issue of resilience is key. For example, Rahul Bajaj, chairman of Indian car manufacturer Bajaj Auto, says India's domestic demand has made it more resilient than many countries. Should this be part of nations' responsible competitiveness strategies in future?

2. JOBS - The ILO says as many as 51 million jobs worldwide could be lost this year, pushing the world's unemployment rate to 7.1% by the end of 2009, compared with 6.0% in 2008. Could it be that the biggest CSR issue in 2009 will be around job retention and responsible approaches to redundancy?

3. SPECULATION - Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the leading private equity company, the Blackstone Group, says that 40% of the world's wealth was destroyed in last five quarters. "It is an almost incomprehensible number," he says. "Business will be very different." Can the casino economy ever be compatible with responsibility, and will we be able to tame it?

4. TRUST - Companies are viewed as less trustworthy than a year ago and consumers want governments to play a greater role in business, according to a poll by Edelman. "Business really has to work its way back. It has to re-earn the trust of its broad sets of constituents," says CEO Richard Edelman. "I think we have moved from a shareholder society to a stakeholder society, and that has massive implications." I hope he's right!

5. CHARITY - South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel notes that overseas development aid to Africa is suffering: "Already, we are some $240bn (£167bn) short of the commitments made at [the 2005 G8 summit in] Gleneagles." Surely, we can expect corporate philanthropy to suffer in equal measure?

I think WEF founder, Klaus Schwab, best sums up the challenge we face: "We have now a mass crash and we have to figure out first how we help those injured by it. Secondly, we have to find out what rules we need for the future in order to avoid this happening again." 

Finally, former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, continues to be the conscience of the world, when he says: "We need to ensure the poorest in the planet - who will be hardest hit by the financial crisis - are not forgotten." A timely reminder for what should be the central concern of CSR in the coming months?

What Obama's inauguration speech means for CSR?

Having just watched the inauguration of Obama, it is hard not to feel that we have just witnessed a geopolitical (perhaps even a psycho-spiritual) shift. But what will this mean for corporate sustainability and responsibility?

The speech was notable from a CSR perspective in a number of ways:

1. Obama's acknowledgement of the irresponsibility of capital markets and the need to regulate them, which should lead to some reigning in of "casino capitalism";
   
2. Obama's repeated mention (twice I think) of the need to invest in renewables (although I also noticed the "harness the soil" comment, which presumably means fossil fuels);
   
3. Obama's emotional identification with the marginalised populations of the US and the world, which should lead to a prioritisation of social issues; and
   
4. Obama's clear desire for America to demonstrate its leadership in the world, including in the area of climate change, which should lead to progress in the post-Kyoto deal.
   

Then again, as one BBC commentator pointed out, Obama needs to convince us all that he is not just good at words, but at actions as well. The next 100 days will, I believe, give us a much clearer picture of Obama's likely influence on the global CSR agenda.

(For those interesting in something a bit more creative on the subject, I have written a new poem about Obama's inauguration, which is posted here:

http://waynevisser.blogspot.com/2009/01/poem-on-obamas-inauguration.html)

Reminder: CSRI Masterclass and The World Guide to CSR

Just two quick reminders: 

1. CSR MASTERCLASSES: There are still places available for the CSR International Masterclass I - Introduction to CSR Theory and Practice - running on Friday 23 January and repeated on Saturday 24 January

2. WORLD GUIDE TO CSR: The deadline for applications from potential contributors (who wish to write on CSR in a particular country/region) is this Friday, 15 January. A list of available countries & regions is available.

More information on both is on: www.csrinternational.org.